Town Square

Around Pleasanton: Council candidates spar at forum, though they mostly agree on issues

Original post made on Sep 13, 2018

It's almost certain that the next Pleasanton City Council, where two seats will be filled in the upcoming Nov. 6 election, will be much the same as what we have today.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, September 12, 2018, 3:25 PM


3 people like this
Posted by Frank Lynn
a resident of Valley Trails
on Sep 13, 2018 at 11:34 am

Let’s not “move on up” to the Eastside until will get some more schools built. Which we can’t seem to do despite passing a bond measure with that intention. High density housing developers don’t have to pay as much for school impact fees as single family homes, and pro-growth demographers can lie all they want and tell me that school age kids won’t live there-that doesn’t make it true. Let’s not turn Pleasanton into a developer’s playground while shortchanging our kids. Message to council candidates as to why people move to Pleasanton, “It’s the schools, stupid.”

1 person likes this
Posted by sjdunbar
a resident of Livermore
on Sep 13, 2018 at 11:55 am

"I want our next generation, teachers and first responders to be able to afford housing in Pleasanton," Testa said. "These high-density requirements will not accomplish that goal. They would allow 80-90% high-end market rate housing, with only 10-20% for low income, affordable units."

Alright, so let's force developers to build 100% affordable housing!

Oh, developers stopped building any housing in Pleasanton and the average price of other homes shot through the roof?


Like this comment
Posted by sjdunbar
a resident of Livermore
on Sep 13, 2018 at 11:58 am

@Frank "and pro-growth demographers can lie all they want and tell me that school age kids won’t live there-that doesn’t make it true."

"Won't live there" and "statistically fewer families will live there" are two very different things. Per person, high density statistically means less expensive trash pickup, way lower water use, lower maintenance costs due to less infrastructure requirements.

2 people like this
Posted by sjdunbar
a resident of Livermore
on Sep 13, 2018 at 12:01 pm

"She said that before adding more high-density housing here, we need to address the "elephant" in the room -- which is the infrastructure needed to support it."

And who will pay for that if we never expand that tax base to support that expansion? The current residents aren't going to support higher taxes to overdevelop infrastructure. That's just a delay excuse.

6 people like this
Posted by Been Around the Block
a resident of Pleasanton Valley
on Sep 13, 2018 at 12:21 pm

SJDunbar - not sure where you get your facts from but read up a little more. Traffic is a TOP issue for Pleasanton residents, and I am tired of seeing more construction of new homes without the expansion of roads to accommodate the additional cars. And NO I am not going to ride my bike to work. Instead of expanding the roads, the opposite is happening with Hacienda and some council members voting to restrict Owens Drive - now I am backed up getting to BART. Then all of the money collected for traffic improvements throughout town is being spent on the boondoggle Costco's $21M in road expansions. Do they think we are going to collect taxes on groceries? No. Brain dead leadership but I feel better after venting.

6 people like this
Posted by Frankie
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 14, 2018 at 12:43 am

Forget building in the east area unless there is a street connection to Stanley Blvd and Stoneridge Drive via the El Charro roadway. Any new development can not put more cars on Valley Avenue which is the heaviest used route in town for commuters, as well as parents driving to Alisal, Harvest or Amador, and big industrial trucks. And it should be a majority of senior housing so schools are not further impacted and less cars are added during the busiest hours. Seniors neeed affordable housing too in apartments, townhomes and detached houses at all density levels. Even another continuing care community with the hospitals and medical buildings nearby.

I doubt Ledoux and Streng have ever sat in traffic at Santa Rita and Valley or witnessed the backups on Valley extending to Stanley on a regular basis trying to get home especially when an accident on the freeway has re-routed all cars to this area. I cant imagine adding more schools or high density family houses to that area to choke off access to the southeastern parts of Pleasanton.

2 people like this
Posted by Not a Narum Fan
a resident of Ironwood
on Sep 15, 2018 at 9:57 am

Talking about the East Side, I attended a few meetings about development in East Pleasanton and Council member Cathy Narum was up in the front running the meetings where almost everyone was from the development industry and they could not wait to get a few thousands new homes approved in the East Pleasanton (over by the rock quarries). She wants houses there but I am told by a friend she lives on the other side of town. REALLY Council woman Narum - pushing more houses on us. How about approving a few thousand homes on your own side of town first? And second, do you want to grow right up to the Livermore city limits too?

6 people like this
Posted by David
a resident of Alisal Elementary School
on Sep 18, 2018 at 3:34 pm

David is a registered user.

Dear Not a Fan,
The state requires all cities to have a certain amount of land zoned for high density housing in order to build a required number of housing units and affoordable units. If Pleasanton does not comply, then the state could take away money or the city could be sued just like they were several years ago by an affordable housing advocacy group. The other possibility is that the city will lose its authority in these matters does giving up local control.
I’m not crazy either about developing the east area plan unless there is sufficient parks, Street connections, and appropriate densities. But please understand that Pleasanton really has no other choice but to plan in a responsible way to meet the state regulations.